NationStates

Knockturn Alley wrote:

Bahktar wrote:
Because you're not a Republican, you're supposedly a Democrat.

So your position is that if you're a democrat and republicans dont dislike you, you must be doing something wrong?

Attempting to appeal to the other side to gain votes is considered heresy and treason, apparently.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Attempting to appeal to the other side to gain votes is considered heresy and treason, apparently.

Appealing to the other side is different from wanting to work in Trump's cabinet and accepting their endorsement.

The Republican Party themselves aren't trying to appeal to the Democratic Party.

Thermodolia wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
As I see it, her domestic views are good, it's just her cynical foreign policy that should've died with the Cold War that keeps me from actually voting for her myself.

Because invading Iraq was a great idea. And bombing the shit out of Libya was a great thing to do. We should totally do the same to Syria. What do you mean Iraq and Libya are terrorists infested hellholes?

I never supported Iraq, and the Libyans asked us to come in, so it wasn't like we barged in uninvited.

Shrillland wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Because invading Iraq was a great idea. And bombing the shit out of Libya was a great thing to do. We should totally do the same to Syria. What do you mean Iraq and Libya are terrorists infested hellholes?

I never supported Iraq, and the Libyans asked us to come in, so it wasn't like we barged in uninvited.

Still we shouldn’t go in. The south Vietnamienne asked us to come help yet there are several who said we never should have gotten involved.

Honestly I think the idea that democracy can work everywhere is flawed. Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty much always been under an autocratic ruler. We should have propped up one of the more pro-American Generals instead of going full nation building.

Knockturn Alley wrote:

Bahktar wrote:
Because you're not a Republican, you're supposedly a Democrat.

So your position is that if you're a democrat and republicans dont dislike you, you must be doing something wrong?

Anyone Trump approves probably is doing something wrong, yes.

Thermodolia wrote:

Shrillland wrote:
I never supported Iraq, and the Libyans asked us to come in, so it wasn't like we barged in uninvited.

Still we shouldn’t go in. The south Vietnamienne asked us to come help yet there are several who said we never should have gotten involved.

Honestly I think the idea that democracy can work everywhere is flawed. Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty much always been under an autocratic ruler. We should have propped up one of the more pro-American Generals instead of going full nation building.

Fair enough, I'll grant.

Now for news from Reuters: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrat-julian-castro-expected-to-launch-2020-us-presidential-bid/ar-BBS8G1o?li=BBnbcA1

We knew it was coming, and now, Julian Castro's making it official.

Tulsi announcing is amazing. I hate her abortion stance but her foreign policy and economic policy have been great while in Congress. I don't care who wins between her and Ojeda, but there are far too many progressives running right now. The divide between progressives is an issue, since no major neoliberal Democrats have announced yet.

Eglaecia wrote:Tulsi announcing is amazing. I hate her abortion stance but her foreign policy and economic policy have been great while in Congress. I don't care who wins between her and Ojeda, but there are far too many progressives running right now. The divide between progressives is an issue, since no major neoliberal Democrats have announced yet.

Castro is kinda neoliberal

Thermodolia wrote:

Eglaecia wrote:Tulsi announcing is amazing. I hate her abortion stance but her foreign policy and economic policy have been great while in Congress. I don't care who wins between her and Ojeda, but there are far too many progressives running right now. The divide between progressives is an issue, since no major neoliberal Democrats have announced yet.

Castro is kinda neoliberal

Never even saw he announced. This could be a problem.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:#AnyoneButTrump

Please.

I, for one, look forward to four more years of him.
You can't fathom how much of a boon he has been for us non-anglophone students when it comes to our studies.

Thermodolia wrote:

United States of Natan wrote:I just want to punch my hand into something really hard out of frustration that so many people seem completely oblivious to her record which should disqualify her as a Democratic candidate.

Oh so sad that people don’t want your uber crazy lady who said that the second amendment should be repealed. I’m so sorry the rest of us want someone who can ya know win in places that aren’t NY and CA.

I mean, there would be riots if Hillary Clinton was a homophobic, racist, antisemitic,

I didn’t see any riots when Clinton was nominated. Also Gabbard isn’t racist or antisemitic or homophobic. And unlike Hillary “I’m against gay marriage” Clinton she changed her mind after serving in Iraq and not because her opponent for the nomination said gays are cool.

bigoted former cultist masquerading as a Democrat, who supports Assad and other dictators.

Yes because invading every goddamn nation on the planet because dictator man bad is the best thing ever and has never ever messed up. Pay no mind to the fact that Iraq and Libya are worse off than before we “helped”

She'd have been run out of the country.

And that’s why Trump and Pence aren’t in office. Oh wait...

And yet so many on the far left seem quick to jump on the Tulsi Train. It just dumbfounds me why they don't do their own research. I only hope that the media vets her, which they failed to do for Bernie.

I’m sure they actually have do there own research and the majority aren’t for invading every goddamn nation on the planet, they aren’t for candidates who are super crazy, and nor are they for supper polished focus groupped candidates

Dude, you're literally claiming that Tulsi is allowed to change her mind (when in fact, she admitted she hasn't changed her personal stance, she just claims that she thinks the government shouldn't interfere, and only changed it for political expedience) but that somehow, Hillary isn't (and in fact, Hillary has always been supportive of gay rights, as per this tweet thread that goes into extensive detail on her record: https://twitter.com/LisaTalmadge/status ... 2505559044). This is my problem with far leftists like yourself. They act far more like republicans than Democrats. The line is surprisingly blurry.

You are living proof that the horseshoe theory is true. The extremes are far closer than they seem.

Thermodolia wrote:

United States of Natan wrote:EXACTLY what I've been saying! I'm Jewish, so hell will freeze over before I'm caught dead voting for an antisemite, or a bigot in general. If I have to, I'll write in Hillary.

You voted for Clinton. So you should have no trouble voting for a bigot.

Oh my God, this is too funny. You're a laugh riot. Hillary is a bigot in the same way the Sun orbits around the Earth. Maybe get your head out of the right-wing propaganda machine for once and do some research. If Hillary is a bigot, then you're basically saying almost everyone else in the world is one.

As for Tulsi Gabbard's antisemitism, it's pretty blatant, and if you can't see it, then you don't know what antisemitism is.

Anyway dude, if you want to support far-right conservative like Tulsi, go right ahead. I'm just telling you what her record is. If you ignore it, that's on you. You'll have to live with knowing you'd rather just ignore facts and support a right-wing extremist masquerading as a leftist than actually do the research and learn the facts. I know I wouldn't want that kind of life.

United States of Natan wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Oh so sad that people don’t want your uber crazy lady who said that the second amendment should be repealed. I’m so sorry the rest of us want someone who can ya know win in places that aren’t NY and CA.


I didn’t see any riots when Clinton was nominated. Also Gabbard isn’t racist or antisemitic or homophobic. And unlike Hillary “I’m against gay marriage” Clinton she changed her mind after serving in Iraq and not because her opponent for the nomination said gays are cool.


Yes because invading every goddamn nation on the planet because dictator man bad is the best thing ever and has never ever messed up. Pay no mind to the fact that Iraq and Libya are worse off than before we “helped”


And that’s why Trump and Pence aren’t in office. Oh wait...


I’m sure they actually have do there own research and the majority aren’t for invading every goddamn nation on the planet, they aren’t for candidates who are super crazy, and nor are they for supper polished focus groupped candidates

Dude, you're literally claiming that Tulsi is allowed to change her mind (when in fact, she admitted she hasn't changed her personal stance, she just claims that she thinks the government shouldn't interfere, and only changed it for political expedience)

So? I’m fine if people don’t personally agree with things but believe that the government shouldn’t interfere. I’m that way with abortion.

but that somehow, Hillary isn't (and in fact, Hillary has always been supportive of gay rights, as per this tweet thread that goes into extensive detail on her record: https://twitter.com/LisaTalmadge/status ... 2505559044). This is my problem with far leftists like yourself. They act far more like republicans than Democrats. The line is surprisingly blurry.

No she hasn’t been. She’s only been pro-gay since the mid 2010s.

You are living proof that the horseshoe theory is true. The extremes are far closer than they seem.

You aren’t in the center dude.

Thermodolia wrote:You voted for Clinton. So you should have no trouble voting for a bigot.

Oh my God, this is too funny. You're a laugh riot. Hillary is a bigot in the same way the Sun orbits around the Earth. Maybe get your head out of the right-wing propaganda machine for once and do some research. If Hillary is a bigot, then you're basically saying almost everyone else in the world is one.

She makes racist jokes about people and she only changed to pro gay because it was politically expedient to do so.

As for Tulsi Gabbard's antisemitism, it's pretty blatant, and if you can't see it, then you don't know what antisemitism is.

Ya this Jew isn’t seeing. Maybe you could support your bullshit claim?

Anyway dude, if you want to support far-right conservative like Tulsi, go right ahead. I'm just telling you what her record is. If you ignore it, that's on you. You'll have to live with knowing you'd rather just ignore facts and support a right-wing extremist masquerading as a leftist than actually do the research and learn the facts. I know I wouldn't want that kind of life.

She’s not a right wing extremist masquerading as a leftist. She’s just not a super liberal SJW.

Thermodolia wrote:snip

I guess it seems like you're going to ignore everything I told you before and it seems like you'll pick on someone who is (no offense) less versed in the topic and doesn't check sources to talk to because it's easier.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Sorry, I've never been a great speller.

Thank yourself that you do not live in the world of Harry Potter then!

(Goddamn leftists and their endless Harry Potter comparisons...)

Never got that much into Harry Potter, but I liked what little I saw of it.

Thermodolia wrote:Unlike the SJWs I don’t give a shit about what someone said almost 8+ years ago.

This and to be honest I'm so sick of Trump fucking up the US that I just want someone sensible to be the next president.

Thermodolia wrote:

United States of Natan wrote: Dude, you're literally claiming that Tulsi is allowed to change her mind (when in fact, she admitted she hasn't changed her personal stance, she just claims that she thinks the government shouldn't interfere, and only changed it for political expedience)

So? I’m fine if people don’t personally agree with things but believe that the government shouldn’t interfere. I’m that way with abortion.

but that somehow, Hillary isn't (and in fact, Hillary has always been supportive of gay rights, as per this tweet thread that goes into extensive detail on her record: https://twitter.com/LisaTalmadge/status ... 2505559044). This is my problem with far leftists like yourself. They act far more like republicans than Democrats. The line is surprisingly blurry.

No she hasn’t been. She’s only been pro-gay since the mid 2010s.

You are living proof that the horseshoe theory is true. The extremes are far closer than they seem.

You aren’t in the center dude.

Oh my God, this is too funny. You're a laugh riot. Hillary is a bigot in the same way the Sun orbits around the Earth. Maybe get your head out of the right-wing propaganda machine for once and do some research. If Hillary is a bigot, then you're basically saying almost everyone else in the world is one.

She makes racist jokes about people and she only changed to pro gay because it was politically expedient to do so.

As for Tulsi Gabbard's antisemitism, it's pretty blatant, and if you can't see it, then you don't know what antisemitism is.

Ya this Jew isn’t seeing. Maybe you could support your bullshit claim?

Anyway dude, if you want to support far-right conservative like Tulsi, go right ahead. I'm just telling you what her record is. If you ignore it, that's on you. You'll have to live with knowing you'd rather just ignore facts and support a right-wing extremist masquerading as a leftist than actually do the research and learn the facts. I know I wouldn't want that kind of life.

She’s not a right wing extremist masquerading as a leftist. She’s just not a super liberal SJW.

Keep your head in the sand all you want. It still won't make you right.

And as a Jew, I know antisemitism when I see it. Tulsi has it in spades.

And I know I'm not in the center. But I also know that I'm not far left. I'm more in between the two; in other words, a Progressive.

United States of Natan wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:So? I’m fine if people don’t personally agree with things but believe that the government shouldn’t interfere. I’m that way with abortion.


No she hasn’t been. She’s only been pro-gay since the mid 2010s.


You aren’t in the center dude.


She makes racist jokes about people and she only changed to pro gay because it was politically expedient to do so.


Ya this Jew isn’t seeing. Maybe you could support your bullshit claim?


She’s not a right wing extremist masquerading as a leftist. She’s just not a super liberal SJW.

Keep your head in the sand all you want. It still won't make you right.

And as a Jew, I know antisemitism when I see it. Tulsi has it in spades.

And I know I'm not in the center. But I also know that I'm not far left. I'm more in between the two; in other words, a Progressive.

Therm, another Jew, doesn't see any anti-semitism.

Ya gonna provide actual hard proof or not?

United States of Natan wrote:Keep your head in the sand all you want. It still won't make you right.

And as a Jew, I know antisemitism when I see it. Tulsi has it in spades.

And I know I'm not in the center. But I also know that I'm not far left. I'm more in between the two; in other words, a Progressive.

I think there are better candidates than Gabbard which is obvious considering my statements the past 2 pages, but I would really want to see in what way Tulsi Gabbard is supposedly anti-semitic. Please provide some sort of factual evidence, rather than, "I'm a Jew, so I know it."
Is it be cause of Syria?

Yea. natan, are we in agreement that if Sanders wins the primary, we are to let him run?

Bahktar wrote:

United States of Natan wrote:Keep your head in the sand all you want. It still won't make you right.

And as a Jew, I know antisemitism when I see it. Tulsi has it in spades.

And I know I'm not in the center. But I also know that I'm not far left. I'm more in between the two; in other words, a Progressive.

I think there are better candidates than Gabbard which is obvious considering my statements the past 2 pages, but I would really want to see in what way Tulsi Gabbard is supposedly anti-semitic. Please provide some sort of factual evidence, rather than, "I'm a Jew, so I know it."
Is it be cause of Syria?

It could be because she's more critical of Israel than some others , but criticising Israel's separation policies doesn't, IMO, equate to outright antisemitism.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

United States of Natan wrote:Keep your head in the sand all you want. It still won't make you right.

And as a Jew, I know antisemitism when I see it. Tulsi has it in spades.

And I know I'm not in the center. But I also know that I'm not far left. I'm more in between the two; in other words, a Progressive.

Therm, another Jew, doesn't see any anti-semitism.

Ya gonna provide actual hard proof or not?

As a fan of indie music, I can tell that Tulsi has a vociferous hatred of indie music in spades.

Also, Castro has announced he will be running. I don't see him exactly inspiring that many voters, though I'm sure he can wrangle together a sizable amount of fundraising.

Shrillland wrote:

Bahktar wrote:
I think there are better candidates than Gabbard which is obvious considering my statements the past 2 pages, but I would really want to see in what way Tulsi Gabbard is supposedly anti-semitic. Please provide some sort of factual evidence, rather than, "I'm a Jew, so I know it."
Is it be cause of Syria?

It could be because she's more critical of Israel than some others , but criticising Israel's separation policies doesn't, IMO, equate to outright antisemitism.

Yeah I checked around a bit, but I didn't see anything. The closest things I saw were criticizing Israel, which is not in and of itself anti-semitic, and having her trip to Syria paid for by a group that might have ties to anti-semitic groups, which even without the uncertainty of it, doesn't prove anything either. There's nothing that's pointing to Gabbard being anti-semitic, not that I can see anyway.

Major-Tom wrote:Also, Castro has announced he will be running. I don't see him exactly inspiring that many voters, though I'm sure he can wrangle together a sizable amount of fundraising.

Presumably he's trying to get out in front of a potential O'Rourke candidacy. I doubt it'll be much help for him one way or the other.

I'm sorry guys but if Donald Trump could win, Kanye West definitely could, and definitely will.

The Black Party wrote:I'm sorry guys but if Donald Trump could win, Kanye West definitely could, and definitely will.

What about Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson?